Lindsey Graham, the Republican senator from South Carolina, has strategically positioned himself in the complex landscape of U.S. foreign policy regarding Russia’s aggression in Ukraine. Graham’s approach illustrates a delicate balancing act between advancing his political interests and maintaining a strong relationship with former President Donald Trump. Despite recent controversies surrounding his comments about Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Graham is leading the charge for tougher sanctions against the Kremlin.
Graham’s strategic long game with Trump has proven to be dangerously counterproductive. He pivots to singing the former president’s tune whenever it becomes politically expedient to do so. Over the last few years, he has won Trump’s trust and confidence through constant things Trump likes. This dynamic has given him serious latitude to influence the terms of policy debates even among GOP insiders. Help support Graham’s Sanctioning Russia Act of 2025. He casts himself as the main player here, keeping pressure on Russia and sticking it to Trump’s base.
The proposed legislation would place heavy economic sanctions on Russia, introducing “bone-crushing sanctions” directly against Vladimir Putin. Graham’s bill would introduce a staggering 500% tariff on goods imported from countries that purchase Russian oil and other products. This extreme step demonstrates Graham’s firm commitment to making sure that Russia pays an extremely high price for its military invasion in Ukraine.
Graham has been a vocal presence in the ongoing debate over sanctions. He recently traveled to Kyiv to meet with President Zelenskyy and participated in high-level meetings in Brussels to discuss possible EU-U.S. sanctions packages. He has been vocal about the need for tougher measures, stating, “I have coordinated with the White House on the Russia sanctions bill since its inception. The bill would put Russia on a trade island, slapping 500% tariffs on any country that buys Moscow’s energy products.”
Graham has recently pushed the envelope with his statements on Zelenskyy. After what he saw as a futile trip to meet at the White House, he blasted Zelenskyy publicly. He even proposed that the Ukrainian president should resign. This statement shocked many regular watchful and forced some to reevaluate Graham’s otherwise steadfast defense of Ukraine.
In fact, contrary to these statements, Graham has repeatedly underscored the need for continued U.S. support for Ukraine. He expects the Senate to begin moving soon on his sanctions bill. We are pleased to see strong bipartisan support for these critical investments. So did fellow Republican Don Bacon. He said at the time, “There is an enormous bipartisan consensus in the Senate in favor of sanctions…We should get that out.” It’s in our national security interests that Russia does not succeed here.
By all accounts, political analyst John Hardie was very pleased at the political rhetoric for Graham’s case on the need for more pressure on the Kremlin. He stated, “Senator Graham deserves a lot of credit for making the case for tougher pressure on the Kremlin. Carrots clearly haven’t worked, so it’s time to start using some sticks.” Hardie further explained that economic pressure must be accompanied by sustained military support for Ukraine.
Trump’s evolving stance on Putin has influenced Graham’s approach. The ex-prez has been raising alarm bells over Putin’s aggression. I’ve always had a very good relationship with Vladimir Putin of Russia, but something has happened to him. Trump advanced his recent attack on Putin for the invasion of Ukraine, calling the invasion “needless” and taking the opportunity to call Putin’s aggression “crazy.”
As Graham walks this tightrope in his political dance, he is ever-mindful of one thing that haunts him. His relationship with Trump is central to his political survival, yet he recognizes the need to advocate strongly for Ukraine amidst ongoing hostilities from Russia. He’s right to keep up the pressure so we continue to see U.S. policy in line with a tough stance towards Russian aggression.